united states consumer law attorney fee survey report...

Ronald L. Burdge, Esq.

UNITED STATES CONSUMER LAW

ATTORNEY FEE SURVEY REPORT

2013-2014

United States Consumer LawAttorney Fee Survey Report 2013-2014

Conducted By

Ronald L. Burdge, Esq.Burdge Law Office Co. LPA

2299 Miamisburg Centerville RoadDayton, OH 45459-3817

Voice: 937.432.9500Fax: 937.432.9503

Email: [email protected]

Copyright © 2015 by R.L.BurdgeRevised May 22, 2015

All rights reserved. This publication contains the results of proprietaryresearch. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any formor by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system without priorpermission in writing from the publisher.

This publication was created to provide you with accurate and authoritativeinformation concerning the subject matter covered. The publisher is notengaged in rendering legal or other professional advice and this publicationis not a substitute for the advice of an attorney or expert. If you require legalor other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorneyor other professional.

mailto:[email protected]

This work is dedicated to the private and public practice members of theConsumer Law bar and the Judges who decide Consumer Law cases acrossthe United States and its territories, all of whom tirelessly dedicate theircareers to helping people find justice every day in our legal system. Withouttheir support and participation the research for this publication would nothave been possible.

A special thanks is extended to Ira Rheingold, Executive Director of theNational Association of Consumer Advocates and Willard Ogburn, ExecutiveDirector of the National Consumer Law Center for their leadership,friendship, advice and tireless support of this research work during the last15 years. Also, my sincerest of thanks is extended to Jon Sheldon of theNational Consumer Law Center for his constant encouragement of thisproject since the survey began in 1999.

Ronald L. Burdge, Esq.March 2, 2015

Table of Contents

1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Error Rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Methodology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Section 508 Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5The Average and the Median: What it Means to You.. . . . . . . . . . . . 6Geographic Areas Defined.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Interpreting the Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2. Summary Profile of the Typical US Consumer Law Attorney. . . . . . . . . 11

3. Region Summary Profiles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Summary Profile of Atlantic Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Summary Profile of the California Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Summary Profile of the Florida Region.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Summary Profile of the Mid West Region.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Summary Profile of the New York Region.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Summary Profile of the North East Region.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Summary Profile of the Ohio Region.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Summary Profile of the Pacific Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Summary Profile of the South Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Summary Profile of the Texas Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Summary Profile of the US Territories Region.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Summary Profile of the West Region.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4. Region Average Table for All Firms.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

5. Region Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Explanation of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31Atlantic Region.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33California Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Florida Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Mid West Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36New York Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37North East Region .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Ohio Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Pacific Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40South Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Texas Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42US Territories Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43West Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

6. Selected States Summary Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Explanation of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

i

Alabama.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48California.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Colorado. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Connecticut.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51District of Columbia.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Illinois. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Indiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Kentucky. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Massachusetts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Michigan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59Minnesota. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60Missouri.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Nebraska. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Nevada.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64New York.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65North Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Ohio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68Oregon.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Pennsylvania.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Washington.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73West Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74Wisconsin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

7. Metropolitan Area Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Explanation of Table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Birmingham, Alabama.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78Phoenix, Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Los Angeles, California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80San Francisco, California.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81Sacramento, California. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82Denver, Colorado. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83New Haven-Bridgeport, Connecticut.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84Hartford, Connecticut. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Jacksonville, Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86Miami, Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87Tampa, Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88Orlando, Florida.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89Atlanta, Georgia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

ii

Chicago, Illinois. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91Indianapolis, Indiana.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92Lexington, Kentucky. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93Baltimore, Maryland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94Boston, Massachusetts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95Detroit, Michigan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96Lansing, Michigan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97Minneapolis - St Paul, Minnesota. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98Columbia, Missouri. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99Kansas City, Missouri. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100St Louis, Missouri. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101Omaha, Nebraska.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102Las Vegas, Nevada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103Newark, New Jersey.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104Trenton, New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105Albany, New York.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106New York City, New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107Rochester, New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108Raleigh, North Carolina.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109Cincinnati, Ohio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110Cleveland - Akron - Canton, Ohio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111Columbus, Ohio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113Portland, Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115Pittsburg, Pennsylvania.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116Providence, Rhode Island. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117Dallas – Fort Worth, Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118Houston, Texas.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119San Antonio, Texas. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120Richmond, Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121Norfolk – Virginia Beach, Virginia.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122Milwaukee, Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

8. Survey Techniques.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

9. Cases Employing Use of Survey Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

10. Cases on Use of Survey Data.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

11. Recommendations for Future Survey Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

11. Survey Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

12. About the Editor.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

iii

1. Introduction

This report publishes the results of the United States Consumer Law

Attorney Fee Survey for 2013-2014. Survey results reported here cover every

region, state, metropolitan area and non-metropolitan area in the United

States and its Territories. This revision on May 22, 2015 corrects two minor

typographical errors and adds comparative information.

Several changes in format and content are introduced with this edition

of the Survey Report that the reader may notice. One of those is that there is

no longer a separate section for the hourly rates by years in practice tables.

Those tables are now included under Section 5, the Region Tables. The title

of that section was also shortened to indicate that all tables applicable to the

Region are placed there. This change enables easier analysis of all data on a

regional approach, rather than having to consult two different sections of the

Report to obtain data applicable to one region.

After this introductory section, the results of this survey are reported

in six sections.

Section 2 of this Survey Report is the Summary Profile of the Typical

US Consumer Law Attorney, a collective approach to the entire survey results

which yields a detailed picture of key aspects of the typical US Consumer Law

practitioner in the United States and its territories. It is based on the survey

results as a whole and may serve as a benchmark for regional, state and

metropolitan comparisons by the reader.

Section 3 contains the Regional Summary Profiles analyses which

reports a summary profile of the typical Consumer Law attorney in each of

the 12 regions in the survey. It provides a collective approach to each region’s

survey results, which yields a more detailed summary picture of key aspects

of the typical US Consumer Law practitioner in each survey Region. Although

more detailed localized data is provided for the first time with this year’s

Report, the larger viewpoint on the data can only be represented by the

Regional view’s broader perspective. The Regional Summary Profile also is

the only portion of the survey data that aligns with the only other similar

survey known to exist, although it is not specific to Consumer Law.

1

Section 4 contains the Region Average Table for All Firms. This section

reports the regional average hourly rates according to small and large firm

classification and includes both attorney rates and paralegal rates. This table

gives a broad overview at a glance with easy side by side comparisons of key

data. It also is the only part of the survey that allows the reader to see the

relative survey participation from each of the 12 surveyed regions.

Section 5 includes the Region Tables. These tables combine those

sections that were previously reported in two sections, the Averages and

Medians Tables and the Years in Practice Tables. Included in the two separate

tables in this section of the Report, on a regional basis, is results of key survey

questions and the average hourly rates according to only the number of years

an attorney has been practicing law. It was deemed appropriate to combine

the two types of tables so that all data for any one Region would be in one

place in this Report, for the reader’s easy analysis and use.

Section 6 contains data for 29 selected states and the District of

Columbia. These selections were made based chiefly on the basis of their

larger population count. Together these 30 high-population areas represent

81.2% of the total US population according to the US Census Bureau’s 2015

estimates. The concentrated location of this significant portion of the US

population makes a closer analysis of the data in these states particularly

worthwhile since these are where the greatest quantity of consumers,

consumer transactions, and Consumer Law attorneys can be expected to be

found. This section contains, for each state and the District, similar Averages

and Medians Tables as included in Section 5, but adds seven new attorney

hourly points of data. Both the median metropolitan and the non-

metropolitan attorney hourly rate are included along with the median

attorney hourly rate in each of the five areas of the state. This allows for rate

data to be localized far more than ever before.

Section 7 contains the metropolitan area tables for 46 metropolitan

areas in the United States. Once again, these selections were made based

chiefly on the basis of their larger population count. Together these

metropolitan areas total an estimated 176,261,427 which is about 55% of the

entire US population. This section contains, for each metropolitan area,

similar averages and medians tables as were included in Section 5 and adds

the years in practice tables to the metropolitan area analysis. This approach

2

allows for far more localized data reported than ever before in our Survey.

Attorneys in every state and the US Territories took part in the

national survey and the results are the most comprehensive since our

continuous research work began in 1999.

Consumer Law is recognized as a specialized area of law1 dealing with

issues arising from transactions involving one or more persons acting as

individuals or as a family. Consumer Law, as an area of practice, typically

includes bankruptcy, credit discrimination, consumer banking, warranty law,

unfair and deceptive acts and practices, and more narrow topics of consumer

law such as consumer protection rights enabled by specific statutes such as

the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Uniform Consumer Sales Practices Act,

state and federal lemon laws, and many others.

Prior studies have shown that the factors most influencing an hourly

rate are an attorney’s years in practice, location of practice, and size of firm.

These factors are variously surveyed and reported in this publication. More

detailed location of practice data, and related customized data in relation to

locale, is published in the separately available localized Reports and is

available upon request.

In compiling this report, a valuable contribution was made by

members of the National Association of Consumer Advocates and Consumer

Law attorneys across the United States and its territories who were invited to

participate during 2013 and 2014.

As previously, an on-line survey service was utilized to gather and

tabulate the results with safeguards in place to limit data input to one

participant per survey.

Similar studies were undertaken annually since 1999. The objective of

these studies was to determine the demographics of Consumer Law private

practitioners, including attorney hourly billing rate, firm size, years in

1 As said by the Ohio 9th District Court of Appeals, “[c]onsumer law isa specialty area that is not common among many legal practitioners.” Crowv. Fred Martin Motor Co., 2003-Ohio-1293 (Summit App. No. 21128).

3

practice, concentration of practice, primary and secondary practice area

prevalence, paralegal billing rates and other data.

The collected information has been condensed into this national

reference to provide benchmarks to assist Consumer Law attorneys as they

manage their practice and Courts as they seek to determine applicable

reasonable hourly rates in cases before them.

Because of the ever increasing involvement of paralegals in the non-

administrative daily aspects of a legal practice in most states, data is also

presented on paralegal hourly rates.

The data is reported in various tables below, allowing the reader to

consider the data from several viewpoints of selected factors or criteria. In

addition, more detailed regional data with explanatory charts is available on

request for any state, the geographical area of any state and the metropolitan

area of any state.

Error Rate

Before this publication, a hand selected review was conducted of

selected data received during this survey and compared with the data

reported in the previous survey. The results indicate an error rate of less than

one percent in the present survey Report, a number substantially lower than

the error rate of most similar types of surveys.

Methodology

Survey results are based on the results of an on-line survey fielded

during 2013 and 2014 and consisting of eleven key data questions. The survey

was administered via email, ordinary mail, facsimile and telephonic

invitations to a web-based questionnaire.

The entire active membership of the National Association of Consumer

Advocates (except for persons employed in public employment or education)

along with other known Consumer Law practitioners from around the United

4

States and its territories was surveyed.

Invitations to participate were also randomly sent to attorneys

disclosed through internet search engine results conducted on a national level

as well as randomly selected physical telephone book specialty listings where

available. Invitations to participate were also randomly sent to attorneys

identified through court filings in various jurisdictions and bar association

directories where available.

To help practitioners understand and interpret the data below, a brief

explanation of the data may help.

Section 508 Compliance

The United States Consumer Law Attorney Fee Survey is the only

survey program of its type that is Section 508 Certified. This means that the

survey program on which this survey runs meets all current US Federal

Section 508 certification guidelines.

Section 508 is a Federal law that outlines the requirements to make

online information and services accessible to users with disabilities. The

government web site that outlines the requirements and helpful links

regarding section 508 is located on the internet at this page:

http://www.section508.gov/. All Federal agencies are required to use 508

certified software and technologies when available.

The Voluntary Product Accessibility Template was used in the design

of the survey. VPAT’s purpose is to assist Federal contracting officials and

other buyers in making preliminary assessments regarding the availability of

commercial "Electronic and Information Technology" products and services

with features that support accessibility. The VPAT was developed by the

Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) in partnership with the U.S.

General Services Administration (GSA).

Use of the VPAT means that this survey is built on programming that

includes a text element for every non-text element of the survey web page,

web pages are designed so that all information displayed with color is also

5

available without color, all parts of the survey are readable without having to

open another window, and other techniques to enable disabled persons to

fully participate in every aspect of the Fee Survey.

It is important for the Fee Survey to be able to reach the broadest

range of potential respondents possible to provide the reader with the most

accurate results. By including survey feedback from the disabled

demographic, the Fee Survey ensures a more representative population is

able to participate so that all demographics may be included in the Fee Survey

results.

The Average and the Median: What it Means to You

To help practitioners understand and interpret the data in this report,

a brief explanation of common data terminology in this report may be useful.

The tables in this Report use some terms whose meaning , while

understood by statisticians, may not be clear to attorneys and Judges.

The “average” (sometimes called the arithmetic average) is calculated

by adding the values of all responses, then dividing by the number of

responses.

For example, five responses are reported, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 12. The average

is calculated by adding their values (3 + 4 + 6 + 8 + 12 = 33), then dividing by

the number of responses (5). Thus, the average is 33 / 5 = 6.6.

The “median” has a different meaning. It is the middle value of a

series of values, which is initially rank-ordered from low to high. By

definition, half the numbers are greater and half are less than the median.

Both mean and median values are used in this survey report as a pointer for

the central area of survey results without regard to the average.

Statisticians variously agree that using the median as a statistic

reduces the effect of extreme outer numbers (extremely high or low values,

such as 12 in the above example). Using an average takes all numbers into

accounting.

6

As an example of how using a median affects the above numbers, the

same five responses are reported, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 12. The median is the middle

number of the order of distribution, 6. Note, however, that the average of this

same distribution of numbers is 6.6.

The median literally is the value in the middle. It represents the mid

way point in a sequence of numbers. It is determined by lining up the values

in the set of data (for example, in this fee survey that would be all of the

individual fee rate responses logged in the survey) from the smallest on up to

the largest. The one in the dead-center is the median number.

The median is not the average of the numbers (you don’t add anything)

in the list, but merely determine the center of the list. Some statisticians say

that using the mean (instead of the average) gives less weight to the

individual numbers that are on the outer limits of the survey responses and

is more likely to direct the survey to the real center of the responses.

The median result of a set of numbers may be higher or lower than the

average of that same set of numbers. Because the median number is

commonly not the same as the average number, being either slightly above

or below it, we are including both the average and the median results in many

of the results in the survey.

Geographic Areas Defined

The data has been compiled in twelve geographic regions, including

several states identified as their own region. This approach is based on three

factors: the long-established Altman-Weil2 regional tables, the quantity of

Consumer Law attorneys that were readily identified as practicing in each

state, and the geographic proximity of any one state to a nearby overall

2

Altman Weil, Inc. provides management consulting services exclusively tolegal organizations. Its clients include law firms, law departments,governmental legal offices and legal vendors of all sizes and types throughoutNorth America, the U.K. and abroad. The Altman Weil website address ishttp://www.altmanweil.com/ .

7

http://www.altmanweil.com/

region.

The twelve regions for this survey are:

Atlantic: DC, DE, NC, NJ, PA, VA, WV

California

Florida

Mid West: IA, IL, IN, KS, MI, MN, MO, ND, NE, SD, WI

New York

North East: CT, MA, MD, ME, NH, RI, VT

Ohio

Pacific: AK, HI, OR, WA

South: AL, AR, GA, KY, LA, MS, OK, SC, TN

Texas

US Territories: Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands

West: AZ, CO, ID, MT, NM, NV, UT, WY

Since this survey work first began in 1999, the states of California,

Florida, New York, and Ohio have consistently had a larger overall quantity

of Consumer Law practitioners than other states. For that reason, these four

states are treated in the national survey report as being their own region.

The national survey report takes a national view of the survey data and

also provides data for the most populous US states and metropolitan areas,

providing a more detailed, specific and slightly different analysis of the survey

data for the reader’s review and further analysis.

In response to requests for even more detailed data, this year’s survey

added new questions which obtain from each survey participant the specific

area of the state and a metropolitan versus non-metropolitan designation

where each participant regularly practices law. The responsive data enables

an even more localized set of data to be generated for geographic areas within

each of area.

Interpreting the Findings

An hourly rate may commonly be impacted by several factors,

8

including years of practice, firm size, practice location, degree of practice

concentration, reputation, advertising, personal client relationships, and

other factors. As a result, the information presented here may or may not be

indicative of a particular attorney’s reasonable hourly rate without further,

more detailed analysis of the available data and other factors.

Caution is urged in the reader’s review and use of the data provided by

this report since no single attorney can truly be viewed as “typical” or

“average” and the individual factors should be considered in arriving at any

individual attorney’s appropriate current hourly rate.

A Summary Profile of the Typical US Consumer Law Attorney is

presented at the outset of this survey report in order to provide a summary

profile of the average US Consumer Law attorney and their practice. It may

be viewed as the average of all survey responses nationwide.

The National Average Table for All Firms by Region provides an at a

glance view of the averages for respondents by the 12 survey regions.

Presented in table format, it allows for quick and easy comparison of key data

across several regions but is intended to only provide a summary statement

of the key data and should be considered in tandem with the other data

reported herein.

The Average Hourly Rates by Years in Practice Tables by Region

presents an analysis of the impact that years in practice in Consumer Law has

on the average attorney hourly rate. Each region has its own table of survey

results with years in practice being divided in 9 time frames with less than

one year and more than 31 years bracketing the outer limits at each end. One

might think that longevity of practice would dictate an increasingly higher

hourly rate and these tables report survey results that tests that assumption

and, in some cases, variations are observed. Current economic trends outside

of this survey test that assumption even further but are not considered in this

survey.

The Median and Average Summaries Tables by Region are presented

to give an overview of the practice of Consumer Law lawyers in each region.

Note the use of both average and median results in this section, with the

median used to reduce the effect of extremely high or low values in some

9

data. These tables also show the difference in survey results when comparing

the average hourly rates and the median hourly rates, a factor considered by

some statisticians to arrive at what they consider to be more neutral or

accurate survey results.

Where necessary, insufficient data is represented by a dash mark

instead of a numerical entry in the column.

10

2. Summary Profile of the Typical US Consumer Law Attorney

This section summarizes key statistics derived from the survey when

viewed from a national approach. Emphasis here is on the average Consumer

Law attorney in the United States without regard for any specific survey

factor.

The typical Consumer Law attorney is in a small office of 4 or fewer

practitioners. For the first time since the survey began over a decade ago, one

state in the survey reported a majority of Consumer Law attorneys in the state

were employed in larger firms, Illinois at 52%. At the same time, the Mid

West region (which includes Illinois) was still dominated overall by small

firm lawyers. The US Territories region was the only region that reported

100% employed 4 or fewer attorneys. At the other end of the spectrum is New

York which reported that 46.2% were members of large firms employing 4 or

more attorneys.

63.2% of all Consumer Law attorneys report that they practice law in

a metropolitan area of 200,000 persons or more. Only 12.2% reported their

practice to be in a non-metropolitan, rural area. 24.4% reported their regular

practice to involve both types of population densities.

The typical Consumer Law attorney has been practicing law for 18.7

years, a slight increase over the number reported in the last survey, 17.3 years.

16.3% of all Consumer Law attorneys have been in practice 5 years or

less, a slight increase from 15.4% in the last survey report, indicating the

continuing slow growth of practitioners in this area of law. 58.2% have been

in practice 20 years or less. Just 8.6% of all attorneys practicing any amount

of Consumer Law have been in practice more than 35 years. Only 1.7% have

been in practice 45 or more years.

More-experienced attorneys (those with 31 or more years of practice)

make up 19.4% of survey respondents.

The region with the largest percentage of most-senior attorneys, those

with 45 or more years of practice, is New York. The smallest percentage of

most-senior attorneys were found in the Pacific, South and Texas regions.

11

62.8% of all respondents reported that their practice consists of 90-

100% Consumer Law issues, a dramatic increase over the 49.2% reported in

the last survey, but still well below the figure reported four years ago when

82.7% was the level reporting their practice to fall in the 90-100% range for

Consumer Law issues.

The average Consumer Law practice is still supplemented in largest

part by Bankruptcy work (an average of 14.5% in this report), as it has been

for several years.

Following the recession of 2008-2009, hourly rates for Consumer Law

practitioners went into a “holding pattern” but that is clearly over in many

areas of the US, as observed in the post-recession data compiled in this

Report.

The average Consumer Law attorney employs 1 paralegal (1.6 to be

precise) whose hourly billable rate nationally averages $116, a substantial

increase above the last survey report of $96. The paralegal hourly rate has

been flat in the preceding four years, hovering between $93 and $96. The

median hourly rate for a paralegal is $125.

The average hourly rate for the typical Consumer Law attorney

(regardless of all other factors) is $361, a substantial increase from the last

survey report of $304. Like the paralegal hourly rate, the attorney hourly rate

nationally has also been flat in the preceding four years, ranging from $304

to $307.

The median Attorney hourly rate is $350 nationally, another

substantial increase in light of the last survey report at $300. Like the hourly

rates, the median hourly rate in the last four years was essentially flat,

ranging from $293 to $308.

The median 25% Attorney hourly rate (the point at which 25% of all

survey participants reported an hourly rate lower than this number) is $275,

an increase from the last survey number reported at $241. The median 75%

Attorney hourly rate is $425, an increase from the last survey report which

was $355 at the 75% median point. The median 95% Attorney hourly rate is

$650, a dramatic increase from the last survey, which was $480, and only

12

$443 in the survey before that.

The average attorney raised their hourly rate 19.5 months ago. 79.8%

of all Consumer Law attorneys raised their hourly rates during the last 24

months and judging from the increases noted above, the change was a

substantial increase after four years of essentially no change at all.

From a more historical perspective, several observations can be made

when the survey data is viewed over the last decade.

Throughout the last fifteen years, small law firms have consistently

dominated the area of Consumer Law, although more recently on a slightly

decreasing scale.

The average number of years in practice for Consumer Law attorneys

in the last decade have gone upward, from 16 to 18.7 presently, indicating that

Consumer Law remains of interest to those who practice in this area of law,

but also indicating that younger attorneys are less likely to focus on

Consumer Law for their future.

The number of paralegals employed by the average Consumer Law

firm is tied to the economy, regardless of the cost-effectiveness of the support

paralegals provide to their firm. For instance, during the recession in 2009,

the employment of paralegals dropped while post-recession it has exceeded

its 2007 level.

Especially notable in this survey is the increase in attorney hourly rates

in the last 4 years. During the recession, it was typical for hourly rates to

remain flat or even drop a few percentage points. However, post-recession,

hourly rates have risen an average of 120% at all levels (i.e., the average, the

median, the median 25%, the median 75%, and the median 95%). And the

highest increase occurred at the highest hourly rate level, those attorneys

occupying the 95% median hourly rate level.

13

3. Region Summary Profiles

The reports which follow are highlights of the separately published

data in the Region Reports, which contain further explanatory data, analyses

and information particular to each regional area.

Each analysis below contains a summary profile of the typical

Consumer Law attorney practice in each region with some comparisons with

prior survey data where possible along with statistical and relevant

observations.

14

Summary Profile of Atlantic Region


viewed for the Atlantic Region. This region includes the District of Columbia,

Delaware, North Carolina, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West

Virginia. Emphasis here is on the average Consumer Law attorney in this

region without regard for any specific survey factor.

The typical Atlantic Region Consumer Law attorney is in a small office

of 4 or fewer practitioners with a firm size of 2.82 attorneys and has been

practicing law for 20 years, slightly longer than the last survey reported.

Although 58.6% of survey participants reported that 90% or more of

their practice was devoted to Consumer Law, it was a only a slight increase

from last year’s figure but still a substantial decrease from the pre-2010

recession figure. The numbers indicate a stabilizing but reduced quantity of

attorneys devoting substantially all their time to the Consumer Law practice

area.

67.81% reported that Consumer Law represented the largest area of

their practice time although that is the second time in a row that the figure

has been a significant decrease from the prior Report’s figure. The average

Consumer Law attorney in the Atlantic Region continues the trend from last

year of supplementing their Consumer Law practice primarily with

Bankruptcy work.

The average Atlantic Consumer Law firm employs 1.7 paralegals whose

median billable hourly rate is $125, down slightly from the last report but still

above the national average. 36.7% of all Atlantic paralegals have a billable

hourly rate between $100 and $174. In this region, 24% of Consumer Law

firms report they employ no paralegal support at all, the same as the last

Report.

46.8% of all Atlantic Consumer Law attorneys (regardless of all other

factors) have a billable hourly rate above $325 and the average rate was $358,

up slightly from last year’s average rate.

The median Atlantic Attorney hourly rate is $325, a decrease from last

15

year’s $350. The median 25% Atlantic Attorney hourly rate (the point at

which 25% of all Atlantic survey participants reported an hourly rate lower

than this number) is $262. The median 75% Atlantic Attorney hourly rate is

$400. 10.3% of Atlantic survey participants reported an hourly rate higher

than $600.

13.8% of Atlantic survey participants reported an hourly rate higher

than $500.

16

Summary Profile of the California Region


viewed from the California regional approach. Emphasis here is on the

average Consumer Law attorney in the California without regard for any

specific survey factor.

The typical California Consumer Law attorney is in a small office of 4

or fewer practitioners (70.8%, down from last year’s 75.7%) and has been

practicing law for 14 years (only slightly higher than the 13 years in the last

Report). Although 77.4% of survey participants reported that 90% or more of

their practice was devoted to Consumer Law, 84.7% reported that Consumer

Law represented the largest area of their practice time with the practice

supplemented in largest part by Bankruptcy work, continuing a national

trend that is now nearly 5 years old.

The average California Consumer Law firm employs 1 paralegal whose

median billable hourly rate is $125 (down from the $137 in the last Report).

However, 35% of all California paralegals have a billable hourly rate between

$140 and $225. The upward shift in billable paralegal rates, which was first

observed in the last Report, continues with 10.9% of California paralegals

now billing above $174. In this region, 28.5% of Consumer Law firms report

they employ no paralegal support at all.

85.9% of all California Consumer Law attorneys (regardless of all other

factors) have a billable hourly rate above $325 and the average rate was $439,

a decrease from the last Report.

The median California Attorney hourly rate is $425, up from the last

Report’s $412. The median 25% California Attorney hourly rate (the point at

which 25% of all California survey participants reported an hourly rate lower

than this number) is $300. The median 75% California Attorney hourly rate

is $500. 36.4% of California survey participants reported an hourly rate

higher than $475 and 12.41% reported an hourly rate higher than $650.

18.98% of California survey participants reported an hourly rate higher

than $500.

17

Summary Profile of the Florida Region


viewed from the Florida regional approach. Emphasis here is on the average

Consumer Law attorney in the Florida without regard for any specific survey

factor.

The typical Florida Consumer Law attorney is in a small office of 4 or

fewer practitioners (59.4%, a substantial decrease from last year’s 80.9%) and

has been practicing law for 18 years. Although 65.6% of survey participants

reported that 90% or more of their practice was devoted to Consumer Law (a

substantial increase from the 48.9% reported in the last survey), 75%

reported that Consumer Law represented the largest area of their practice

time with the practice supplemented in largest part by Real Estate work.

The average Florida Consumer Law firm employs 2 paralegals whose

median billable hourly rate is $125 (up from $75 in the last Report) and 50%

of all Florida paralegals have a billable hourly rate between $125 and $175.

Just 15.6% of Florida Consumer Law firms having no paralegal support at all,

the lowest of any Region in the US.

58.5% of all Florida Consumer Law attorneys (regardless of all other

factors) have a billable hourly rate above $350 and the average rate was

$382, a substantial increase from the last Report’s reported average of $317.

The median Florida Attorney hourly rate is $350, up from the last

Report’s reported $317. The median 25% Florida Attorney hourly rate (the

point at which 25% of all Florida survey participants reported an hourly rate

lower than this number) is $300, up from $250. The median 75% Florida

Attorney hourly rate is $450, up from $374. Only 3.3% of Florida attorneys

reported an hourly rate higher than $650.

12.5% of Florida survey participants reported an hourly rate higher

than $500.

18

Summary Profile of the Mid West Region


viewed from the Mid West regional approach. This region includes Iowa,

Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota,

Nebraska, South Dakota and Wisconsin. Emphasis here is on the average

Consumer Law attorney in the Mid West without regard for any specific

survey factor.

The typical Mid West Consumer Law attorney is in a small office of 4

or fewer practitioners (60%, down considerably from 75.2 in the last survey

Report) and has been practicing law for 19 years. 70.5% of survey participants

reported that 90% or more of their practice was devoted to Consumer Law,

and 82.1% reported that Consumer Law represented the largest area of their

practice time with the practice supplemented in largest part by Bankruptcy

work.

Although 13.7% of Mid West Consumer Law firms employ no paralegal

support, the average firm employs 2.2 paralegals whose median billable

hourly rate is $125 (up from last year’s $112) and 29.4% of all Mid West

paralegals have a billable hourly rate between $125 and $140 (again an

increase from last year). 32.6% of all Mid West Consumer Law attorneys

(regardless of all other factors) have a billable hourly rate between $200 and

$324 (a substantial decrease of the 51.8% of all attorneys in this same range

that was reported in the last survey Report) and the average rate was $384,

up from last Report’s average rate of $276.

The median Mid West Attorney hourly rate is $375, up from $300 in

the last Report). The median 25% Mid West Attorney hourly rate (the point

at which 25% of all Mid West survey participants reported an hourly rate

lower than this number) is $300, again an increase. The median 75% Mid

West Attorney hourly rate is $450, again an increase. In the last survey

Report for this region, only 9% of participants reported an hourly rate higher

than $500. That has increased also.

24.3% of Mid West survey participants reported an hourly rate higher

than $500.

19

Summary Profile of the New York Region


viewed from the New York regional approach. Emphasis here is on the

average Consumer Law attorney in the New York without regard for any

specific survey factor.

The typical New York Consumer Law attorney is in a small office of 4

or fewer practitioners (53.8%, a decrease from the last Report’s 59.4%). This

is the third Report in a row showing a decrease in the quantity of small firms

in the New York Region. The typical New York Consumer Law firm has been

practicing law for 23.7 years. Although 53.9% of survey participants reported

that 90% or more of their practice was devoted to Consumer Law, 73.1%

reported that Consumer Law represented the largest area of their practice

time with the practice supplemented in largest part by Bankruptcy work.

The average New York Consumer Law firm employs 3.2 paralegals

whose median billable hourly rate is $125 (up from last year’s $100 rate).

However 26.8% of all New York paralegals have a billable hourly rate above

$150. In the New York region, 26.9% of the firms report using no paralegal

support at all.

45.9% of all New York Consumer Law attorneys (regardless of all other

factors) have a billable hourly rate above $400 but the average rate was $462,

up substantially from the last Reports average rate of $262.

The median New York Attorney hourly rate is $425, up from last

Report’s median of $300. The median 25% New York Attorney hourly rate

(the point at which 25% of all New York survey participants reported an

hourly rate lower than this number) is $345, up again. The median 75% New

York Attorney hourly rate is $613, up again. 23% of New York survey

participants reported an hourly rate higher than $599.

34.4% of New York survey participants reported an hourly rate higher

than $500

20

Summary Profile of the North East Region


viewed from the North East regional approach. This region includes

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode

Island, and Vermont. Emphasis here is on the average Consumer Law

attorney in the North East without regard for any specific survey factor.

The typical North East Consumer Law attorney is in a small office of

4 or fewer practitioners (72.7%, nearly identical to the last survey Report’s

73.2%) and has been practicing law for 25.4 years. Although 68.2% of survey

participants reported that 90% or more of their practice was devoted to

Consumer Law, 72.7% reported that Consumer Law represented the largest

area of their practice time with the practice supplemented in largest part by

Bankruptcy work. This change from the last Report brings the North East

Region into line with the national trend of Consumer Law attorneys who

mainly supplement their Consumer Law work with Bankruptcy work.

The average North East Consumer Law firm employs 1.5 paralegals

whose median billable hourly rate is $110. Although 22.7% of firms in this

region report no paralegal support at all, 22.7% of the firms using paralegals

have a billable hourly rate greater than $150.

While 31.7% of all North East Consumer Law attorneys (regardless of

all other factors) have a billable hourly rate above $524, the average rate was

also $400, up from the last Report’s average rate of $311.

The median North East Attorney hourly rate is $400, up from the last

Report’s $287. The median 25% North East Attorney hourly rate (the point

at which 25% of all North East survey participants reported an hourly rate

lower than this number) is $245, an increase. The median 75% North East

Attorney hourly rate is $530, but 13.3% of North East survey participants


31.7% of North East Region survey participants reported an hourly rate

higher than $500.

21

Summary Profile of the Ohio Region


viewed from the Ohio regional approach. Emphasis here is on the average

Consumer Law attorney in Ohio without regard for any specific survey factor.

The typical Ohio Consumer Law attorney is in a small office of 4 or

fewer practitioners (75%, an increase from the last Report of 69.2%) and has

been practicing law for 21.9 years. 66.7% of survey participants reported that

90% or more of their practice was devoted to Consumer Law. 75% reported

that Consumer Law represented the largest area of their practice time with

the practice supplemented in largest part by General Practice work.

Although 16.7% of Ohio Consumer Law firms employ no paralegal

support, the average firm employs 1.8 paralegals whose median billable

hourly rate is $110 (an increase from the last Report’s figure of $98) and

33.3% of all Ohio paralegals have a billable hourly rate above $125.

58.3% of all Ohio Consumer Law attorneys (regardless of all other

factors) have a billable hourly rate between $300 and $450 and the average

rate was $316, a considerable increase from the last Report’s average of $264,

which was only a very slight increase from the prior Report of $263. The Ohio

State Bar Association’s survey report, The Economics of Law Practice in Ohio

in 2013, at page 40, stated the average hourly rate to be slightly higher at

$341.

The median Ohio Attorney hourly rate is $300, exactly the same as

reported by the OSBA 2013 report. The median 25% Ohio Attorney hourly

rate (the point at which 25% of all Ohio survey participants reported an

hourly rate lower than this number) is $245. The median 75% Ohio Attorney

hourly rate is $400. The median 95% hourly rate is $450. The OSBA 2013

report, at page 40, lists $225, $300, $425 and $675 as the 25%, Median, 75%

and 95% hourly rate points. While both survey results in all ranges are close

to each other, the different data sources and participation quantities appear

to yield slightly different results.

20.9% of Ohio survey participants now report an hourly rate higher

than $400, which doubles the previous Report’s 10% figure.

22

Summary Profile of the Pacific Region


viewed from the Pacific regional approach. This region includes Alaska,

Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington. Emphasis here is on the average Consumer

Law attorney in the Pacific without regard for any specific survey factor.

The typical Pacific Region Consumer Law attorney is in a small office

of 4 or fewer practitioners (88.9%, an increase from the last survey Report’s

71.1%, which was itself an increase from the previous survey Report’s 60%).

The typical Pacific Consumer Law attorney has been practicing law for 15

years.

Although only 44.5% of survey participants reported that 90% or more

of their practice was devoted to Consumer Law, 66.7% reported that

Consumer Law represented the largest area of their practice time with the

practice supplemented in largest part by Bankruptcy work.

The average Pacific Consumer Law firm employs .9 paralegal whose

median billable hourly rate is $125 (up from the last survey Report’s $100),

while 50% of all Consumer Law firms in the Pacific Region have no paralegal

support. In the last survey only 31.6% of Consumer Law firms in this region

had no paralegal support.

While the paralegal billable rate has gone up, their use by law firms

appears to have gone down. 27.9% of all Pacific Consumer Law attorneys

(regardless of all other factors) have a billable hourly rate above $325 and the

average rate was $279, down from the last survey Report’s average rate of

$303.

The median Pacific Attorney hourly rate is $275, down slightly from

the last survey Report’s $300 median. The median 25% Pacific Attorney

hourly rate (the point at which 25% of all Pacific survey participants reported

an hourly rate lower than this number) is $190 compared with $215 in the

last survey Report.

The median 75% Pacific Attorney hourly rate is $340, compared with

$350 previously. Notably 16.8% of Pacific survey participants reported an

23

hourly rate higher than $400.

5.6% of Pacific Region survey participants reported an hourly rate

higher than $500.

24

Summary Profile of the South Region


viewed from the South regional approach. This region includes Alabama,

Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South

Carolina and Tennessee. Emphasis here is on the average Consumer Law

attorney in the South Region without regard for any specific survey factor.

Te typical South Region Consumer Law attorney is in a small office of

4 or fewer practitioners (88%, nearly the same as in the last survey Report,

which was 89.2%) and has been practicing law for 24 years (the highest years

of practice number since 2007). 62% of survey participants reported that 90%

or more of their practice was devoted to Consumer Law. 64% reported that

Consumer Law represented the largest area of their practice time with the

practice supplemented in largest part by Bankruptcy work.

The average South Region Consumer Law firm employs 1.6 paralegals

whose median billable hourly rate is $100 (up from the $87 reported in the

last survey) and 28% of all South Region paralegals have a billable rate higher

than $125. Notably, in the South Region 22% of Consumer Law firms employ

no paralegal support, a significant drop from the 44.6% in the last survey

Report.

40% of all South Region Consumer Law attorneys (regardless of all

other factors) have a billable hourly rate above $350 and the average rate was

$313, up from the last survey results which reported an average rate of $267.

The median South Region Attorney hourly rate is $300. The median

25% South Region Attorney hourly rate (the point at which 25% of all South

Region survey participants reported an hourly rate lower than this number)

is $241. The median 75% South Region Attorney hourly rate is $365. Only

10% of South Region survey participants reported an hourly rate higher than

$400. All of these median numbers are higher than the last survey Report

results for the same median points. 12% of South Region survey participants


6.0% of South Region survey participants reported an hourly rate

higher than $500.

25

Summary Profile of the Texas Region


viewed from the Texas regional approach. Emphasis here is on the average

Consumer Law attorney in the Texas without regard for any specific survey

factor.

The typical Texas Consumer Law attorney is in a small office of 4 or

fewer practitioners (80% of respondents this year, compared with 85.3% in

the last survey Report) and has been practicing law for 16 years. 53.8% of

survey participants reported that 90% or more of their practice was devoted

to Consumer Law, and coincidentally 53.8% reported that Consumer Law

represented the largest area of their practice time with the practice

supplemented in largest part by Bankruptcy work.

The average Texas Consumer Law firm employs 1.8 paralegals whose

median billable hourly rate is $100 (higher than the last two survey Reports

results) and 32.6% of all Texas paralegals have a billable hourly rate higher

than $124. In this region, 19.2% of Consumer Law firms report they employ

no paralegal support at all.

67.3% of all Texas Consumer Law attorneys (regardless of all other

factors) have a billable hourly rate above $300 (in the last survey it was

66.7%) and the average hourly rate was $328. This was the fourth survey

Report where the average hourly rate increased over the prior survey result,

indicating a steady upward trend in the average. However median data points

are down.

The median Texas Attorney hourly rate is $300. The median 25%

Texas Attorney hourly rate (the point at which 25% of all Texas survey

participants reported an hourly rate lower than this number) is $255. The

median 75% Texas Attorney hourly rate is $366. Each of these median points

is lower than the last survey Report results. 15.3% of Texas survey

participants reported an hourly rate higher than $399.

5.7% of Texas survey participants reported an hourly rate higher than

$500.

26

Summary Profile of the US Territories Region


viewed from the US Territories regional approach. This region includes

Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the US Virgin Islands. Emphasis

here is on the average Consumer Law attorney in the US Territories Region

without regard for any specific survey factor.

The typical US Territories Region Consumer Law attorney is in a small

office of 4 or fewer practitioners (100%) and has been practicing law for 26

years. Survey participants reported an average of 35% of their practice was

devoted to Consumer Law. Personal Injury work represented the largest area

of their practice time with the practice supplemented in largest part by

General Practice work.

The average US Territories Region Consumer Law firm employs 1

paralegal whose median billable hourly rate is $62 (the same as the last

survey Report) but half of all US Territories Region firms report they employ

no paralegal support at all.

In US Territories Region attorneys who handle Consumer Law work

(regardless of all other factors) have an average billable hourly rate of $550.

The survey results that are distinctively different from prior survey results are

the longevity of practice and the higher-than-previous hourly rate so it is

reasonable to assume that there is a direct relationship.

The median US Territories Region Attorney hourly rate is $537, a

significant rise from the last survey Report. The median 25% US Territories

Region Attorney hourly rate (the point at which 25% of all US Territories


is $374. The median 75% US Territories Region Attorney hourly rate is $562.

50% of US Territories Region survey participants reported an hourly

rate higher than $500.

27

Summary Profile of the West Region


viewed from the West regional approach. This region includes Arizona,

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming.

Emphasis here is on the average Consumer Law attorney in the West Region

without regard for any specific survey factor.

The typical West Region Consumer Law attorney is in a small office of

4 or fewer practitioners (69.7%) and has been practicing law for 16 years.

Although 73.8% of survey participants reported that 90% or more of their

practice was devoted to Consumer Law, 84.8% reported that Consumer Law

represented the largest area of their practice time with the practice

supplemented in largest part by Bankruptcy work.

The average West Region Consumer Law firm employs 1.6 paralegals

whose median billable hourly rate is $125 (up from the last survey Report)

and 54.4% of all West Region paralegals have a billable hourly rate above

$100, as opposed to the previous 47.4% above that hourly rate amount. In

this region, 21.2% of Consumer Law firms report they employ no paralegal

support at all. Since the last survey, while more attorneys report using

paralegal support quantitatively, they employ fewer paralegals per firm but

at a higher hourly rate.

51.5% of all West Region Consumer Law attorneys (regardless of all

other factors) have a billable hourly rate between $350 and $400. The

average rate was $341 (a significant increase over the last survey Report

average rate of $230).

The median West Region Attorney hourly rate is $350. The median

25% West Region Attorney hourly rate (the point at which 25% of all West


is $175. The median 75% West Region Attorney hourly rate is $450. 12.1% of

West Region survey participants reported an hourly rate higher than $425.

-0-% of West Region survey participants reported an hourly rate

higher than $500.

28

4. Region Average Table for All Firms

This Table does not take into consideration the factors of the degree of concentration or years of practice,among other things, all of which will have a large impact on any particular person’s hourly rate.

Region: % of TotalSurvey

ResponsesFrom This

Region:

Small Firm% of

Region(<5)

Large Firm% of

Region(>5)

Small FirmAverageAttorney

Rate In thisRegion

Large FirmAverageAttorney

Rate In thisRegion

Small FirmAverage

ParalegalRate In this

Region

Large FirmAverage


Region

Atlantic(DC DE NCNJ PA VA

WV)

15.91 70.1 29.9 341 396 107 128

California 20.75 70.8 29.2 446 423 132 137

Florida 4.85 59.4 40.6 389 373 114 123

Mid West(IA IL IN KSMI MN MOND NE SD

WI)

21.52 60.0 40.0 375 398 117 140

New York 3.94 53.8 46.2 434 494 93 137

29

Region: % of TotalSurvey

ResponsesFrom This

Region:

Small Firm% of

Region(<5)

Large Firm% of

Region(>5)

Small FirmAverageAttorney

Rate In thisRegion

Large FirmAverageAttorney

Rate In thisRegion

Small FirmAverage


Region

Large FirmAverage


Region

North East(CT MA MDME NH RI

VT)

4.82 72.7 27.3 345 546 96 142

Ohio 3.64 75.0 25.0 317 313 71 115

Pacific(AK HI OR

WA)2.88 88.9 11.1 253 488 115 163

South(AL AR GAKY LA MSOK SC TN)

7.84 78.0 22.0 290 393 88 115

Texas 7.88 80.8 19.2 309 410 95 141

USTerritories

.45 100 0 550 - - -

West(AZ CO ID

MT NM NVUT WY)

5.43 69.7 30.3 328 370 99 129

30

5. Region Tables

Explanation of Tables

Firm Size The average number of attorneys in the firm.

Median Years in

Practice

The median number of years that all

attorneys in this region have been in practice.

Concentration of

Practice in Consumer

Law

The percentage of practice time expended in

Consumer Law (not Bankruptcy) matters.

Primary Practice Area The area comprising the largest percentage of

the practice work.

Secondary Practice Area The largest practice area outside of Consumer

Law. Where no one area dominates a dash is

entered in the table.

Median Number of

Paralegals in Firm

The median number resulting from all survey

responses.

Last Time Rate Change

Occurred (months)

The median number, expressed in months.

Median Paralegal Rate

for All Paralegals

Expressed in dollars, ranges are avoided

where possible in preference to a specific

result.

Average Attorney Rate

for All Attorneys



result. Note that this is not the median.”

25% Median Attorney

Rate for All Attorneys

25% of all survey responses are below this

number, expressed in dollars.

Median Attorney Rate

for All Attorneys

Half of all survey responses are above this

number and half below, expressed in dollars.

75% Median Attorney




95% Median Attorney


5% of all survey responses are above this


31

Following each Region Summaries Table is a table of attorney hourly

rates by years in practice for that Region. Combined, these tables are

intended to provide the reader with a quick and easy snapshot of the data as

viewed in the Region approach to the data.

The second chart also provides a view of the average hourly rates for

an attorney as measured simply by years in practice in that Region, but the

upper chart should still also be considered in making such a determination.

Of course, the years in practice of an attorney is often deemed related

to the experience level of an attorney and is also one of the traditional ways

of determining the reasonableness of a particular attorney’s hourly rate.

The years in practice alone may not be a sufficient basis, by itself, to

consider a particular hourly rate to be reasonable in a particular case. Other

factors also relate to the determination of a reasonable hourly rate in a

particular case.

In this section of the Report, the only data included is from attorneys

who indicated they practiced in this Region. All other data was excluded. It

should be noted that case law indicates that the hourly rate for the

jurisdiction at hand often applies to an attorney’s hourly rate when practicing

in that jurisdiction, rather than the hourly rate for their office location. Thus

an attorney whose home office is in one state but who seeks recovery of fees

in a different state may find themselves recovering only the rate that is

applicable in the state where the case is pending.

32

Atlantic Region

Firm Size 2.82

Median Years in Practice 20.0

Concentration of Practice in Consumer Law 83.3

Primary Practice Area Consumer Law

Secondary Practice Area Bankruptcy

Number of Paralegals in Firm 1.7

Last Time Rate Change Occurred (months) 19.4

Median Paralegal Rate for All Paralegals 75

Average Attorney Rate for All Attorneys 358

25% Median Attorney Rate for All Attorneys 262

Median Attorney Rate for All Attorneys 325



Years Practicing Consumer

Law

Average Attorney Hourly Rate

<1 275

1 - 3 190

3 - 5 212

6 - 10 275

11 - 15 320

16 - 20 390

21 - 25 395

26 - 30 400

>31 462

33

California Region

Firm Size 2.6




Secondary Practice Area Bankruptcy, Other

Median Number of Paralegals in Firm 1.0









Law


<1 216

1-3 253

3-5 312

6-10 394

11-15 433

16-20 468

21-25 565

26-30 511

>31 545

34

Florida Region

Firm Size 2.8




Secondary Practice Area Real Estate, Other










Law


<1 162

1 - 3 237

3 - 5 313

6 - 10 333

11 - 15 335

16 - 20 488

21 - 25 347

26 - 30 463

>31 492

35

Mid West Region

Firm Size 3.1














Law


<1 225

1 - 3 263

3 - 5 291

6 - 10 331

11 - 15 411

16 - 20 435

21 - 25 417

26 - 30 411

>31 413

36

New York Region

Firm Size 3.2














Law


<1 200

1 - 3 200

3 - 5 275

6 - 10 388

11 - 15 350

16 - 20 413

21 - 25 425

26 - 30 517

>31 550

37

North East Region

Firm Size 2.5














Law


<1 175

1 - 3 175

3 - 5 238

6 - 10 225

11 - 15 345

16 - 20 400

21 - 25 455

26 - 30 344

>31 520

38

Ohio Region

Firm Size 2.5














Law


<1 200

1 - 3 225

3 - 5 275

6 - 10 242

11 - 15 306

16 - 20 375

21 - 25 287

26 - 30 475

>31 340

39

Pacific Region

Firm Size 1.6





Number of Paralegals in Firm .9









Law


<1 113

1 - 3 142

3 - 5 188

6 - 10 250

11 - 15 275

16 - 20 375

21 - 25 381

26 - 30 413

>31 275

40

South Region

Firm Size 2.2














Law


<1 175

1 - 3 200

3 - 5 275

6 - 10 278

11 - 15 242

16 - 20 281

21 - 25 308

26 - 30 315

>31 382

41

Texas Region

Firm Size 2.2














Law


<1 220

1 - 3 255

3 - 5 258

6 - 10 311

11 - 15 368

16 - 20 343

21 - 25 315

26 - 30 281

>31 361

42

US Territories Region

Firm Size 2.0



Primary Practice Area Personal Injury

Secondary Practice Area Securities


Last Time Rate Change Occurred (months) 36








Law


<1 100

1 - 3 142

3 - 5 175

6 - 10 337

11 - 15 390

16 - 20 405

21 - 25 438

26 - 30 465

>31 500

43

West Region

Firm Size 2.5














Law


<1 175

1 - 3 240

3 - 5 231

6 - 10 369

11 - 15 356

16 - 20 363

21 - 25 369

26 - 30 369

>31 389

44

6. Selected States Summary Tables

Explanation of Tables

Firm Size The average number of attorneys in the firm.

Median Years in

Practice


attorneys in this state have been in practice.

Concentration of


Law

The percentage of practice time expended in

Consumer Law (not Bankruptcy) matters.

Primary Practice Area The area comprising the largest percentage of

the practice work.

Secondary Practice Area The largest practice area outside of Consumer

Law.

Median Number of

Paralegals in Firm


responses in this state


Occurred (months)



for All Paralegals



result.


for All Attorneys



result. Note that this is not the median.

25% Median Attorney





for All Attorneys



75% Median Attorney




95% Median Attorney




45

Median Metropolitan

Attorney Rate

Half of all survey responses in metropolitan

areas of the state are above this number and

half are below

Median Non-

Metropolitan Attorney

Rate

Half of all survey responses in non-

metropolitan areas of the state are above this

number and half are below


in Northern Area of

State

Half of all survey responses in this area of the

state are above this number and half are

below


in Southern Area of

State



below


in Eastern Area of State



below


in Western Area of State



below


in Central Area of State



below

46

Alabama

Firm Size 2.36













Median Metropolitan Attorney Rate 313

Median Non-Metropolitan Attorney Rate 325

Median Attorney Rate in Northern Area of State 325

Median Attorney Rate in Southern Area of State 325

Median Attorney Rate in Eastern Area of State 300

Median Attorney Rate in Western Area of State 300

Median Attorney Rate in Central Area of State 300

47

Arizona

Firm Size 2.8




















48

California

Firm Size 2.6















Median Attorney Rate in Northern Area of

State

475

Median Attorney Rate in Southern Area of

State

400




49

Colorado

Firm Size 2.4






Last Time Rate Change Occurred (months) 12














50

Connecticut

Firm Size 2.1




















51

District of Columbia

Firm Size 3.86

Median Years in Practice 37














Median Attorney Rate in Northern Area of DC 575

Median Attorney Rate in Southern Area of DC 575

Median Attorney Rate in Eastern Area of DC 575

Median Attorney Rate in Western Area of DC 575

Median Attorney Rate in Central Area of DC 575

52

Florida

Firm Size 2.8




Secondary Practice Area Real Estate, Other
















53

Georgia

Firm Size 1.64




















54

Illinois

Firm Size 3.63




















55

Indiana

Firm Size 3.63




Secondary Practice Area General Practice













Median Attorney Rate in Easter Area of State 450



56

Kentucky

Firm Size 2.4




Secondary Practice Area Domestic Relations
















57

Massachusetts

Firm Size 2.5




















58

Michigan

Firm Size 2.93




















59

Minnesota

Firm Size 3.5














Median Non-Metropolitan Attorney Rate -






60

Missouri

Firm Size 3.75




















61

Nebraska

Firm Size 3.4




Secondary Practice Area Criminal Law
















62

Nevada

Firm Size 2.6




Secondary Practice Area -
















63

New Jersey

Firm Size 2.89




















64

New York

Firm Size 3.2




















65

North Carolina

Firm Size 2.8




















66

Ohio

Firm Size 2.5




















The Ohio State Bar Association’s survey report, The Economics of Law

Practice in Ohio in 2013, at page 40, provides results in all ranges that are

either identical or close to this survey on all points. This survey draws on a

significantly larger participation count and it appears that the different data

quantities and perhaps sources appears to yield slightly different results.

Nevertheless, both survey reports provide identical results on several points

and thus each survey validates the results of the other survey.

67

Oklahoma

Firm Size 3.7




















68

Oregon

Firm Size 2.0




















69

Pennsylvania

Firm Size 2.38




















70

Texas

Firm Size 2.2




















71

Virginia

Firm Size 3.42




Secondary Practice Area Bankruptcy, General

Practice
















72

Washington

Firm Size 1.0




















73

West Virginia

Firm Size 4.33




















74

Wisconsin

Firm Size 2.83




















75

7. Metropolitan Area Tables

Explanation of Table

Firm Size The typical firm size in this city area.

Median Years in

Practice


attorneys in this city area have been in

practice.

Concentration of


Law

The largest percentage group, expressed as a

percentage in the midpoint of all percentile

ranges (90-100% is represented as 95% in the

table).

Primary Practice Area The area of law comprising the largest

percentage of the practice work.

Secondary Practice Area The largest practice area outside of the

primary practice area; more than one may be

listed.

Median Number of

Paralegals in Firm


responses.


Occurred (months)



for All Paralegals

Expressed in dollars.


for All Attorneys

Expressed in dollars. Note that this is not the

“median.”

25% Median Attorney





for All Attorneys



75% Median Attorney




95% Median Attorney




76

Metropolitan areas listed in this section appear alphabetically by state

and not merely by the name of the city since the name may appear in more

than one state. Thus, metropolitan areas in Alabama lead the list and

metropolitan areas in Wisconsin are at the end of the list.

Following each Metropolitan Area Summaries Table is a table of

attorney hourly rates by years in practice for that Metropolitan Area.

Combined, these tables are intended to provide the reader with a quick and

easy snapshot of the data as viewed in the narrow metropolitan approach to

the data. The second chart also may provide a view of the average hourly rates

for an attorney as measured simply by years in practice, but the upper chart

should also be considered in making such a determination.

Of course, the years in practice of an attorney is often deemed related

to the experience level of an attorney and is also one of the traditional ways

of determining the reasonableness of a particular attorney’s hourly rate.

The years in practice alone may not be a sufficient basis, by itself, to

consider a particular hourly rate to be reasonable in a particular case. Other

factors also relate to the determination of a reasonable hourly rate in a

particular case.

In this section of the Report, the only data included is from attorneys

who indicated they practiced in their metropolitan area. All non-metropolitan

area data was excluded. A non-metropolitan data report by years in practice

can be made available upon request. However, case law indicates that the

hourly rate for the jurisdiction at hand often applies to an attorney’s hourly

rate when practicing in that jurisdiction, rather than the hourly rate for their

office location.

77

Birmingham, Alabama

Firm Size 1.0







Average Paralegal Rate for All Paralegals 71







Years Practicing Consumer Law Average Attorney Hourly Rate

<1 225

1-3 233

3-5 275

6-10 308

11-15 320

16-20 325

21-25 333

26-30 350

>31 300

78

Phoenix, Arizona

Firm Size 1.0















<1 264

1-3 183

3-5 204

6-10 264

11-15 308

16-20 375

21-25 375

26-30 350

>31 450

79

Los Angeles, California

Firm Size 3.8















<1 250

1-3 257

3-5 306

6-10 370

11-15 588

16-20 483

21-25 725

26-30 500

>31 560

80

San Francisco, California

Firm Size 4.0















<1 250

1-3 242

3-5 338

6-10 350

11-15 588

16-20 500

21-25 725

26-30 500

31 558

81

Sacramento, California

Firm Size 3.5















<1 219

1-3 289

3-5 321

6-10 342

11-15 480

16-20 485

21-25 600

26-30 417

>31 614

82

Denver, Colorado

Firm Size 1.8















<1 275

1-3 314

3-5 350

6-10 350

11-15 275

16-20 335

21-25 339

26-30 344

>31 300

83

New Haven-Bridgeport, Connecticut

Firm Size 2.25





ast Time Rate Change Occurred (months) 18.0










<1 184

1-3 184

3-5 250

6-10 237

11-15 362

16-20 420

21-25 602

26-30 375

>31 637

84

Hartford, Connecticut

Firm Size 2.8















<1 184

1-3 184

3-5 250

6-10 237

11-15 362

16-20 420

21-25 602

26-30 375

>31 563

85

Jacksonville, Florida

Firm Size 3.8















<1 169

1-3 248

3-5 313

6-10 300

11-15 350

16-20 475

21-25 325

26-30 484

>31 475

86

Miami, Florida

Firm Size 4.3




Secondary Practice Area Real Estate











<1 169

1-3 248

3-5 313

6-10 338

11-15 350

16-20 510

21-25 363

26-30 450

>31 413

87

Tampa, Florida

Firm Size 3.8















<1 170

1-3 248

3-5 313

6-10 350

11-15 350

16-20 475

21-25 363

6-30 484

>31 488

88

Orlando, Florida

Firm Size 2.6















<1 166

1-3 248

3-5 313

6-10 338

11-15 344

16-20 488

21-25 367

26-30 475

>31 488

89

Atlanta, Georgia

Firm Size 1.0















<1 170

1-3 194

3-5 250

6-10 200

11-15 232

16-20 269

21-25 294

26-30 300

>31 358

90

Chicago, Illinois

Firm Size 3.8















<1 205

1-3 238

3-5 325

6-10 322

11-15 432

16-20 455

21-25 560

26-30 535

>31 442

91

Indianapolis, Indiana

Firm Size 3.91















<1 237

1-3 325

3-5 313

6-10 325

11-15 450

16-20 450

21-25 438

26-30 432

>31 538

92

Lexington, Kentucky

Firm Size 2.4




Secondary Practice Area Domestic Relations











<1 222

1-3 227

3-5 250

6-10 314

11-15 200

16-20 319

21-25 349

26-30 357

>31 327

93

Baltimore, Maryland

Firm Size 2.3















<1 153

1-3 153

3-5 206

6-10 195

11-15 298

16-20 353

21-25 400

26-30 400

>31 725

94

Boston, Massachusetts

Firm Size 2.8















<1 196

1-3 196

3-5 265

6-10 250

11-15 385

16-20 446

21-25 507

26-30 384

>31 593

95

Detroit, Michigan

Firm Size 2.9















<1 239

1-3 318

3-5 350

6-10 289

11-15 300

16-20 461

21-25 442

26-30 436

>31 345

96

Lansing, Michigan

Firm Size 3.3















<1 239

1-3 318

3-5 350

6-10 350

11-15 300

16-20 460

21-25 441

26-30 434

>31 435

97

Minneapolis - St Paul, Minnesota

Firm Size 3.4















<1 247

1-3 288

3-5 275

6-10 350

11-15 375

16-20 525

21-25 650

26-30 449

>31 450

98

Columbia, Missouri

Firm Size 4.2















<1 248

1-3 289

3-5 250

6-10 350

11-15 450

16-20 513

21-25 475

26-30 451

>31 250

99

Kansas City, Missouri

Firm Size 3.8















<1 207

1-3 241

3-5 250

6-10 350

11-15 375

16-20 550

21-25 382

26-30 376

>31 378

100

St Louis, Missouri

Firm Size 3.3














Years Practicing

Consumer Law

Average Attorney

Hourly Rate

<1 253

1-3 295

3-5 250

6-10 350

11-15 460

16-20 550

21-25 250

26-30 461

>31 225

101

Omaha, Nebraska

Firm Size 2.0















<1 238

1-3 278

3-5 350

6-10 350

11-15 450

16-20 464

21-25 458

26-30 433

>31 475

102

Las Vegas, Nevada

Firm Size 3.0















<1 219

1-3 300

3-5 290

6-10 463

11-15 447

16-20 455

21-25 463

26-30 375

>31 475

103

Newark, New Jersey

Firm Size 3.3















<1 260

1-3 180

3-5 200

6-10 259

11-15 250

16-20 367

21-25 370

26-30 538

>31 534

104

Trenton, New Jersey

Firm Size 3.0















<1 336

1-3 234

3-5 261

6-10 338

11-15 325

16-20 478

21-25 483

26-30 596

>31 725

105

Albany, New York

Firm Size 2.9















<1 200

1-3 200

3-5 275

6-10 375

11-15 350

16-20 413

21-25 575

26-30 518

>31 535

106

New York City, New York

Firm Size 2.9















<1 200

1-3 200

3-5 250

6-10 375

11-15 350

16-20 413

21-25 575

26-30 500

>31 539

107

Rochester, New York

Firm Size 3.7















<1 183

1-3 185

3-5 250

6-10 250

11-15 320

16-20 377

21-25 388

26-30 600

>31 475

108

Raleigh, North Carolina

Firm Size 3.0













95% Median Attorney Rate for All Attorneys


<1 259

1-3 180

3-5 275

6-10 260

11-15 300

16-20 367

21-25 290

26-30 338

>31 580

109

Cincinnati, Ohio

Firm Size 2.5















<1 220

1-3 271

3-5 300

6-10 250

11-15 269

16-20 411

21-25 315

26-30 520

>31 361

110

Cleveland - Akron - Canton, Ohio

Firm Size 1.8




Secondary Practice Area Personal Injury











<1 198

1-3 175

3-5 300

6-10 238

11-15 302

16-20 325

21-25 285

26-30 475

>31 394

111

Columbus, Ohio

Firm Size 2.5















<1 209

1-3 275

3-5 275

6-10 250

11-15 363

16-20 425

21-25 299

26-30 492

>31 318

112

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Firm Size 3.7















<1 199

1-3 264

3-5 362

6-10 367

11-15 275

16-20 250

21-25 406

26-30 415

>31 638

113

Portland, Oregon

Firm Size 1.5















<1 125

1-3 150

3-5 175

6-10 250

11-15 250

16-20 400

21-25 408

26-30 425

>31 275

114

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Firm Size 2.6















<1 325

1-3 226

3-5 250

6-10 297

11-15 334

16-20 375

21-25 381

26-30 597

>31 485

115

Pittsburg, Pennsylvania

Firm Size 2.5




Secondary Practice Area Criminal Law


Median Number of Paralegals in Firm .2









<1 259

1-3 154

3-5 200

6-10 325

11-15 300

16-20 368

21-25 350

26-30 356

>31 411

116

Providence, Rhode Island

Firm Size 1.0















<1 200

1-3 203

3-5 276

6-10 261

11-15 400

16-20 463

21-25 526

26-30 399

>31 600

117

Dallas – Fort Worth, Texas

Firm Size 2.4















<1 196

1-3 225

3-5 350

6-10 350

11-15 492

16-20 375

21-25 307

26-30 277

>31 350

118

Houston, Texas

Firm Size 2.5















<1 223

1-3 225

3-5 288

6-10 350

11-15 514

16-20 384

21-25 354

26-30 325

>31 344

119

San Antonio, Texas

Firm Size 2.8















<1 240

1-3 275

3-5 300

6-10 350

11-15 452

16-20 550

21-25 357

26-30 321

>31 475

120

Richmond, Virginia

Firm Size 3.5















<1 275

1-3 275

3-5 248

6-10 350

11-15 409

16-20 496

21-25 400

26-30 386

>31 450

121

Norfolk – Virginia Beach, Virginia

Firm Size 3.4





Last Time Rate Change Occurred (Months) 26.0







75% Median Rate for All Attorneys 410

95% Median Rate for All Attorneys 475


<1 275

1-3 275

3-5 260

6-10 350

11-15 394

16-20 375

21-25 350

26-30 377

>31 434

122

Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Firm Size 3.0





Last Time Rate Change Occurred (Months) 18.0










<1 225

1-3 318

3-5 350

6-10 300

11-15 300

16-20 425

21-25 400

26-30 400

>31 450

123

8. Survey Techniques

Surveys are widely considered to be important tools in any evaluation

process. There are fundamentally two types of surveys: open ended

questioning and closed ended questioning.

Open ended questions allow the responder to respond in any manner

at all with no definite answer. Close ended questions provide a limited

number of possible answers from which a response can be chosen by the

responder. Because open ended questions allow for an unlimited response,

they can lead to a subjective analysis and the results are almost always more

difficult to interpret and quantify for analysis.

Close ended questions, however, lend their responses to easy statistical

analysis.

There are five types of close ended questions.

A Likert-scale question allows for responses on a scale and allows a

responder to state their feelings about an issue, such as strongly agree to

strongly disagree. Multiple choice questions allow the responder to select

from a finite number of responses. Ordinal questions ask the responder to

rate things in relation to each other, such as selecting the most important to

the least important responses about an issue. Categorical questions first place

the responder in a category and then poses questions based on those

categories, such as preceding questions with the initial inquiry of whether the

responder is male or female. Numerical questions are used when the answer

must be a real number.

Different types of questions are used in survey work so that different

types of results analyses may be conducted, but the most common survey

techniques are the numerical and the multiple choice question because of the

ease with which conclusions may be derived from the raw data.

This survey used numerical questions and one multiple choice

question. This allows for precise responses that can readily be cataloged and

statistically interpreted.

124

9. Cases Employing Use of Survey Report

Courts frequently consider and use survey data in decision making

involving fee disputes, finding it an economical and impartial means of

determining contested fee issues.

Some of the cases using the US Consumer Law Attorney Fee Survey

Report when deciding attorney fee disputes in Consumer Law cases, include

the following.

Crafton v. Law Firm of Jonathan B. Levine, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

29690 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 7, 2014) (“Several courts in this District have

recognized the Fee Survey as a reliable resource in determining the

reasonableness of an attorney's hourly rate, particularly in conjunction with

consideration of counsel's experience. See Moreland v. Dorsey Thornton &

Assocs., LLC, No. 10-CV-867, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54487, 2011 WL

1980282, *3 (E.D. Wis. May 20, 2011) (relying on counsel's website, which

lists the attorney profiles, along with the United States Consumer Law

Attorney Fee Survey in determining that the requested hourly rate was

reasonable); House v. Shapiro & Price, No. 10-CV-842, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

38322, 2011 WL 1219247 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 30, 2011) (same); Suleski v. Bryant

Lafayette & Assocs., No. 09-CV-960, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55353, 2010 WL

1904968 (E.D. Wis. May 10, 2010) (same).”)

Davis v. Hollins Law, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81024, 10-12 (E.D. Cal.

June 10, 2014) Plaintiff also relies on the United States Consumer Law

Attorney Fee Survey Report 2010-2011 * * * The court has reviewed the

methodology underlying the Survey, and finds it credible.

Decker v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 2009 WL 2916819, N.D. Ill.,

2009., September 01, 2009 (finding results in the 2007 United States

Consumer Law Attorney Fee Survey Report to be supported by the Laffey

Matrix).

Beach v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162926 (E.D.

Wis. Nov. 15, 2013) (“... several courts in this District have recognized the Fee

Survey as a reliable resource in determining the reasonableness of an

125

attorney's hourly rate, particularly in conjunction with consideration of

counsel's experience.”)

Lockmon v. Thomas F. Farrell, P.C., No. 12-cv-02319-CMA-MEH,

2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178661, 2012 WL 6590426, at *3 (D. Colo. Dec. 18,

2012) ("the Court finds that the average rates set forth in the [Consumer Law

Attorney Fee] Survey are reasonable”).

LaFountain, Jr v. Paul Benton Motors of North Carolina, LLC, 2010

WL 4457057, (ED NC, November 5, 2010) (Senior US District Judge James

C. Fox specifically finds the US Consumer Law Attorney Fee Survey Report

to be persuasive, after rejecting the National Law Journal’s fee survey and the

US Attorney’s Laffey Matrix as unpersuasive in consumer law cases: “The

court does, however, find the evidence in the United States Consumer Law

Attorney Fee Survey to be persuasive”).

Ramirez v. N. Am. Asset Servs., LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54641

(C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2012) (stating that the argument opposing the Survey was

“untethered” to reality in light of the Survey report’s resulting data).

Lindenbaum v. NCO Fin. Sys., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78069 (E.D. Pa.

July 18, 2011) (using both the US Consumer Law Attorney Fee Survey

Report and the US Attorney’s Laffey Matrix in determining a fee award).

Suleski v. Bryant Lafayette & Associates, 2010 WL 1904968, E.D.

Wis.,2010., May 10, 2010 (“However, the United States Consumer Law

Attorney Fee Survey for 2008-09 for the Midwest and California, see

www.consumerlaw.org/feesurvey (last visited May 7, 2010), supports the

reasonableness of the hourly rates sought by counsel in light of their

experience”).

Vahidy v. Transworld Systems, Inc., 2009 WL 2916825, N.D. Ill.,

2009., September 01, 2009 (finding results in the 2007 United States

Consumer Law Attorney Fee Survey Report to be “supported by the Laffey

Matrix”).

Bratton v. Thomas Law Firm PC, 943 F. Supp. 2d 897 (N.D. Ind.

2013) (“In Moore v. Midland Credit Mgmt., Inc., No. 3:12-CV-166-TLS, 2012

126

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176600, 2012 WL 6217597 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 12, 2012), this

Court recently analyzed the applicability of both the Consumer Law Attorney

Fee Survey Report and the Laffey Matrix. [904] The Court found that the

Report "provides a general range for billing rates that is useful as one factor

in a court's multi-factor analysis." 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176600, [WL] at

*4.”).

Beach v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162926 (E.D.

Wis. Nov. 15, 2013). (“As Beach points out, several courts in this District have

recognized the Fee Survey as a reliable resource in determining the

reasonableness of an attorney's hourly rate, particularly in conjunction with

consideration of counsel's experience.”).

In addition to the cases noted above, other cases using the US

Consumer Law Attorney Fee Survey Report when deciding attorney fee

disputes in Consumer Law cases include those on the following list.

Arizona

Savage v NIC, Inc., 2010 WL 2347028, D. Ariz., June 9, 2010.

Shelago v. Marshall & Ziolkowski Enterprise, LLC, 2009 WL

1097534, D.Ariz., 2009., April 22, 2009.

California

Krapf v Nationwide Credit, Inc., 2010 WL 4261444, C.D. Cal., October

21, 2010.

Broad. Music Inc. v. Antigua Cantina & Grill, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 72122 (E.D. Cal. May 20, 2013).

Brown v. Mandarich Law Group, LLP, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47020

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2014).

Castro v. Commercial Recovery Sys., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33675

(N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2014).

127

Garcia v. Resurgent Capital Servs., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123889

(N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2012).

De La Torre v. Legal Recovery Law Office, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

128220 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2014).

Verdun v. I.C. Sys., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52238 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 14,

2014).

Delalat v. Syndicated Office Sys., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33756 (S.D.

Cal. Jan. 23, 2014).

Crawford v. Dynamic Recovery Servs., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4057

(S.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2014).

Breidenbach v. Experian, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82093 (S.D. Cal. June

11, 2013).

Colorado

Gregg v. N.A.R., Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32017 (D. Colo. Mar. 12,

2014).

Reichers v. Del. Asset Mgmt., LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164981 (D.

Colo. Nov. 20, 2013)

Andalam v. Trizetto Group, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159656 (D. Colo.

Nov. 7, 2013).

Bock v. APIM, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176648 (D. Colo. Nov. 7,

2013).

Peterson-Hooks v. First Integral Recovery, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 73907 (D. Colo. May 24, 2013).

Scadden v. Weinberg, Stein & Associates, LLC, No.

12-CV-02454-PAB-MEH, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57939, 2013 WL 1751294, at

*6 (D. Colo. Apr. 23, 2013).

128

Anderson v. Nat'l Credit Sys.,2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134268 (D. Colo.

Dec. 1, 2010).

Florida

Lane v. Accredited Collection Agency, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

58502 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2014)

Renninger v Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd, 2010 WL 3259417, M.D.

Fla., August 18, 2010.

Sandin v. United Collection Bureau, Inc., 2009 WL 2500408, S.D.

Fla.,2009., August 14, 2009.

Georgia

Hebert v. Wallet Recovery Ltd., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57012 (M.D.

Ga. Apr. 24, 2014).

Idaho

Lecoultre v. Takhar Collection Servs., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96443

(D. Idaho July 9, 2013).

Indiana

Moore v. Midland Credit Mgmt., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176600 (N.D.

Ind. Dec. 12, 2012)

Nevada

Feely v. Carrington Mortg. Serve., LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161626

(D. Nev. Nov. 14, 2014).

Schneider v. SSA, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119553 (D. Nev. Aug. 27,

2014).

Ohio

129

Simpson v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10875 (S.D.

Ohio Jan. 29, 2014).

Coy v. Astrue, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50328 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 8, 2013).

Hakkarainen v. Astrue, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188466 (N.D. Ohio

June 27, 2012).

Paris v Regent Asset Management Solutions, Inc., 2010 WL 3910212,

S.D. Ohio, October 5, 2010.

Wamsley v. Kemp, 2010 WL 1610734, S.D. Ohio, 2010, April 20, 2010

(using both the national survey and the regional survey reports).

Livingston v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, 2009 WL 4724268,

N.D. Ohio, 2009, December 02, 2009.

Tennessee

McCutcheon v. Finkelstein Kern Steinberg & Cunningham, 2013 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 121460 (M.D. Tenn. Aug. 27, 2013)

Texas

Szijjarto v. Farias, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17406 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 12,

2014).

West Virginia

Pearson v. Prichard's Excavating & Mobile Home Transp., 2014 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 16089 (S.D. W.Va. Feb. 10, 2014).

Harmon v. Virtuoso Sourcing Group LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

129770 (S.D. W. Va. Sept. 12, 2012).

130

10. Cases on Use of Survey Data

Additional considerations in using fee surveys may be relevant to a

court’s consideration in a particular case, including the following concepts

drawn from the illustrative cases below.

In determining whether a requested hourly rate is appropriate, a court

may look not only to past awards within the district, but the other

submissions offered in support of the award such as surveys and affidavits.

See, Waldo v. Consumers Energy Co., 726 F.3d 802, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS

16555, at *37, 2013 WL 4038747 at *12 (6th Cir. Aug. 9, 2013); also see Sykes

v. Anderson, 419 Fed. Appx. 615, 618, 2011 U.S.App. LEXIS 7699 (6th Cir.

2011) ("[t]he appropriate rate . . . is not necessarily the exact value sought by

a particular firm, but is rather the market rate in the venue sufficient to

encourage competent representation.").

While different attorney fee surveys may exist for the Court’s

consideration, the question may be which “fee survey better served the

purpose of assessing the skills, experience and reputation of counsel” in a

particular case. Strohl Systems Group, Inc. v. Fallon, E.D.Pa., 2007, 2007

WL 4323008.

Moreover, a fee survey may be approved as probative evidence of the

reasonableness of an hourly rate. Taylor v. USF-Red Star Express, Inc., 2005

WL 555371, E.D.Pa., 2005, March 8, 2005.

However, the results of an attorney fee survey may be merely a starting

point, a piece of evidence that still should be shown to apply in a particular

case. See, Ray v. Secretary of Dept. Of Health and Human Services, 2006

WL 1006587, Fed.Cl., 2006, March 30, 2006.

The cost of performing a fee survey may be recoverable in some

instances.

It is a matter of first impression that a fee applicant would hire

another attorney to conduct a survey on her behalf. We cannot

forget that Luessenhop has the burden of proving that her Fee

Application is based upon prevailing market rates and that she

131

has the right to present evidence to support the rate she

believes to be prevailing. Here, where we are required to weigh

the presumptive prevailing market rate district wide, further

pondering the geographical distance and economic disparities

between the Plattsburgh and Albany communities and

Schneider's relatively limited access to those attorneys who

practice civil rights litigation in Albany, we acknowledge that

Luessenhop was left with little option but to hire Mishler, an

Albany attorney, to conduct a more comprehensive survey on

her behalf. Luessenhop seeks $787.50 for Mishler's endeavors,

which appears to be modest. Considering the amount of time

this Court spent to conduct a similar survey, we do not find this

amount to be unreasonable and will award it.

Luessenhop v. Clinton County, N.Y. 558 F.Supp.2d 247, 272

(N.D.N.Y.,2008).

132

11. Recommendations for Future Survey Data

As always, we welcome your suggestions for improvements to the

survey and this Report as we continue to gather useful information in the

future.

Please email your suggestions to [email protected] or you may

mail them to Ronald L. Burdge, Esq., 2299 Miamisburg Centerville Road,

Dayton, Ohio 45459-3817.

133

mailto:[email protected]

11. Survey Questions

The following pages contain the survey questions and possible answers

to each question.

134

12. About the Editor

Ronald L. Burdge is an attorney and the founder of Burdge Law Office

Co LPA in Dayton, Ohio. Mr. Burdge is in private practice in Ohio, Kentucky

and Indiana and elsewhere by pro hac admission, and is a nationally known

Consumer Law attorney. For over a decade, Mr. Burdge has testified as an

expert witness on Consumer Law and Attorney Fee issues in numerous state

and federal courts. He is a member of the Total Practice Management

Association and numerous professional associations.

He has authored numerous articles and lectured widely on Attorney

Fee issues and Consumer Law and Consumer Trial Practice, and is a member

of the American Society of Legal Writers and the Legal Writing Institute. Mr.

Burdge has also lectured widely at national and state Consumer Protection

Law seminars before attorneys, judges, and both public and business groups,

and has testified before the Ohio Legislature and its committees on Consumer

Law issues.

He has served as Board Examiner for the National Board of Trial

Advocacy and has extensive Consumer Law trial and appellate experience in

individual and class action cases involving lenders, retail sales practices,

defective products, and warranty litigation. Since 2004, he remains the only

Consumer Law attorney in Ohio who has been named to Ohio Super Lawyer

status by Law & Politics Magazine and Thomson Reuters, and whose practice

is entirely devoted to Consumer Law work for consumers only. Thomson

Reuters is the world’s leading source of intelligent information for businesses

and professionals. In 2004, he was named Trial Lawyer of the Year by the

National Association of Consumer Advocates and in 2010 he was elected to

the Board of the National Association of Consumer Advocates.

Copyright 2014

by R.L.Burdge, Burdge Law Office Co LPA, Dayton, Ohio

139

united states consumer law attorney fee survey report...

Documents